Blue White Roundtable: Alabama Week Edition
Headline »
Blue White Roundtable: Alabama Week Edition
September 7, 2011 – | 1 Comment

Once again, it’s Adam Collyer over at BlackShoeDiaries providing the questions, and we, your humble bloggers, providing the answers. Mine are below, and you can venture off to the remote areas of the blogosphere that …

Read the full story »

Tim Curley: ‘No interest’ in extending Pitt series

Submitted by on June 17, 20118 Comments

Like the old adage goes, give an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Following the initial surprise over Tuesday’s announcement that the Penn State/Pitt rivalry will resume in 2016 for a 2-game series, fans started to speculate whether this would be the catalyst that could revive one of the nation’s oldest and once-fiercest instate rivalries on a more permanent basis. It was Penn State who had approached Pitt AD Steve Pederson about resuming the series in 2016 and 17 after all.

It may seem those fans will be disappointed to learn Penn State actually has little to no intention of extending the series past 2017. Penn State AD Tim Curley basically shot down the idea during an interview (audio here) on Pittsburgh’s KDKA 93.7 The Fan.

“Right now, we wouldn’t be interested in [playing Pitt] on an annual basis…

Its going to be real important for us to continue to move around the country and play some intersectional games around the country. And to move to our alumni bases that are spread out throughout the country. And so I don’t think you would see on an annual basis, at least not in the immediate future.”

When pressed further on the issue, Curley stood his ground.

“But we also have 500,000 living alumni that are spread out all across the United States and its important for us also to get to our alumni in those particular areas as well, so you know while I appreciate the concern, as I said I just think right now we wouldn’t be interested on an annual basis.”

Curley is right, Penn State should value scheduling flexibility more than an annual out-of-conference rival who will only agree to home and home series that will only hinder our ability to diversify our marquee opponents.

Prior to 2006, before the NCAA Division I adopted the 12 game schedule, teams like those in the Big Ten were saddled with the inflexibility of 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and just 3 non-conference opponents all the while trying to remain financially self-sufficient. If Penn State wanted the ability to play various marquee opponents during the non-conference portion (liked they did with South Florida and Cincinnati in 2005, Boston College in 2004 and ’03, Nebraska in 2002 and 03, etc) they had to give up their longstanding rivalry with their Western neighbors especially if it meant requiring a home and away series. Penn State needs to schedule at least 7 home games each season to generate enough revenue to meet the annual athletic budget.

With just 3 non-conference opportunities (prior to 2006) and 4 today, it became increasingly hard for Penn State to schedule a long term rivalry with the Panthers especially if it came at the expense of playing the likes of Notre Dame, Alabama, Syracuse, Boston College.

Some fans have brazenly demanded that Penn State drop the series with Temple and MAC programs for the sake of reviving a Pitt rivalry. That is simply not feasible. Those MAC teams are willing to commit to a 2-for-1 or in Temple’s case, 3-for-1 series, Pitt will not. Heck, even Oregon State agreed to play in Beaver Stadium for a one game deal in 2008. For older Penn State fans, the harsh reality is that scheduling Pitt is now the logistical equivalent to scheduling an Alabama, Notre Dame, Navy or even Rutgers series. Nostalgia has little value in non-conference scheduling especially if Penn State wants to continue to diversify their opponents.

And before you criticize Curley’s barnstorming excuse, Penn State has indeed made a valid attempt at playing intersectional games around the country. In the 19 years since Penn State started Big Ten play in ’93, the Nittany Lions have played away from home 16 times in 10 different states outside of Pennsylvania (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Indiana, Nebraska, Florida and Alabama) during non-Big Ten play.

Penn State’s non-conference Opponents
2011 Alabama Indiana State @ Temple Eastern Illinois
2010 @ Alabama Youngstown State Temple Kent State
2009 Eastern Illinois Syracuse Temple Akron
2008 Oregon State @ Syracuse Temple Coastal Carolina
2007 Notre Dame Buffalo @ Temple Florida Int’l
2006 @ Notre Dame Youngstown State Temple Akron
2005 Cincinnati South Florida Central Michigan
2004 Central Florida @ Boston College Akron
2003 @ Nebraska Boston College Temple Kent State
2002 Nebraska Virginia Central Florida Louisiana Tech
2001 Miami (FL) @ Virginia Southern Mississippi
2000 Southern Cal (N) @ Pittsburgh Toledo Louisiana Tech
1999 @ Miami (FL) Pittsburgh Arizona Akron
1998 @ Pittsburgh Bowling Green State Southern Mississippi
1997 Pittsburgh @ Louisville Temple
1996 Southern Cal (N) Louisville Temple (N) Northern Illinois
1995 Texas Tech @ Rutgers Temple
1994 Southern Cal Rutgers @ Temple
1993 Southern Cal Rutgers @ Maryland

And when you factor in states all the Nittany Lion’s non-conference opponents have hailed from, that number increases to 20 (not including Pennsylvania). To put those numbers in perspective, in the same time frame, Alabama has played away from home just 7 times in 6 different states outside the Yellowhammer State during non-SEC play. In fact, in the 18 seasons since 1993, the Crimson Tide has not left the state for their non-conference games a whopping 11 seasons.

When compared to its peers, Penn State has actually made an effort to play opponents in markets where Penn State alumni are located. Sure Penn State could barnstorm coast to coast across the country, but with so many regional programs available, there’s just no reason to do so.

But to completely shrug off Curley’s explanation as to why Penn State won’t commit to a long term agreement with Pitt so we can diversify our schedule would be wrong. Penn State has a strong track record of scheduling opponents in alumni rich markets in the past and have continued to do so. With Virginia, Rutgers, Navy, and Syracuse (to be played in East Rutherford, NJ), and now Pittsburgh scheduled in the coming years, Penn State has been actively seeking out games against regional opponents in the alumni rich markets of New York/New Jersey and Virginia/Maryland/DC areas.

Should the Pittsburgh series be extended beyond it’s 2-game span, scheduling limitations would put our ability to barnstorm the Penn State footprint at risk. And as a fan I would rather cherish Penn State’s opportunity to take on the Orangemen, Midshipmen, Cavaliers, Irishmen, Scarlet Knights, and Crimson Tide even if it’s just for 2 seasons than handcuff ourselves to an extended annual series with Pittsburgh.

Let’s just be grateful we actually get two chances to watch the instate rivals clash. Remember, it was only a couple days ago when the idea of a Penn State/Pitt game was still just a pipe dream.

top related stories
you may also like

  • Mickey

    PSU could easily play Pitt every year, have national type home and homes, and always have 7 home games.

    For example:

    Year 1: ND home, Pitt away, Scrub #1 home, Scrub #2 home
    Year 2: ND away, Pitt home, Scrub #1 home, Scrub #2 home
    Year 3: Texas home, Pitt away, Scrub #1 home, Scrub #2 home
    Year 4: Texas away, Pitt home, Scrub #1 home, Scrub #2 home

    That’s 7 home games every year. 

    Personally, I’d much rather see a 2 year rotation of eastern rivals like Pitt, WVU, BC, Maryland, Syracuse…but playing 7 home games, having a national opponent every year, and playing Pitt every year is possible.

  • Tgjeff

    You obviously have never had the experience of putting a schedule together before. Even the Scrubs want a home game occasionally. Whether it is on a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 basis. Do the math. You can’t do this and maintain 7 home games every year.  

  • phyrst00

    There is no reason we couldn’t put Pitt on our schedule and still play 3 other non-conf. games ensuring 7 home games a year. The reason we don’t is the AD wants 8 home games every other year. Any one who doesn’t see that isn’t looking.

  • Rowlff Dogg

    I think you’re being overly-generous towards Curley with regards to his ooc scheduling variety.  It may represent some different states, but the opponents are made up of the same teams we used to play as an Independent.  There is almost ZERO variety for home-home arrangements.  (A point only emphasized by the fact that Miami had to back out to allow Pitt in).

    Because of the lack of variety with the BCS ooc opponent, I’d love to see us approach someone other than Temple.  I’m sure New Mexico, Memphis, or Wyoming would take a 2-for-1 with us.  So, why not hit us the country that way?

    I’ve done the research on the variety of BCS non-cons for all BCS leagues and I’ll be unveiling it in a series of posts on JoePa’s Doghouse in the coming weeks.  Bottom line: when it comes to variety in ooc scheduling, Penn State is pathetic.

  • http://quebecpenspinning.com/ Charlie

    As a fan, I’d love to see Penn State take on Oklahoma, Texas, USC and Oregon on an annual basis, but I know that’s just not going to happen with so many old regional rivals located conveniently by us. But I don’t disagree with your sentiment, is our OOC scheduling creative? Definitely not, we are basically recycling our old independent rivals during OOC play, but they DO rotate. If we tack on Pitt, we are essentially playing Pitt and Temple on an annual basis in addition to our Big Ten schedule. The only variety we would be left with would be the last 2 remaining OOC spots which would probably be left to the likes of MAC programs. That number diminishes to just 1 remaining spot when the Big Ten moves to a 9 game conference schedule. So as much as we as fans would love an extended rivalry, it really isn’t in Penn State’s best interest even if it is possible logistically.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/wiscwilly1#cc753 docwilly

    screw Pitt

  • http://twitter.com/russwbeck RusswBeck

    Great article.

    My only issue. When we scheduled South Florida they were NOT a marquee opponent. They were viewed as just another cupcake, sure they turned out to be good that year, but who saw Oregon State being good prior to 2009? Pretty much the exact same scenario.

    They absolutely could play Pitt or ND every year, but Curley seems to be doing alright recently, so I’ll believe what he says for now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=9305932 Seth Wengerd

    Another KEY factor here is the good chance that the Big 10 goes to 9 conf games sometime in near future.  That limits the non-con to 3 and in some years would mean all 3 would need to be home.